Canada - Another Dad Loses His Baby in Adoption Scam

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/30/...adoption-scam/

Glenn Sacks

Another Dad Loses His Baby in Adoption Scam
April 30, 2008 at 1:20 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One
Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'-but It Wasn't Enough, we
discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a
long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby
boy.

The boy's birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for
adoption after, according to one judge, she had "engaged in a web of lies."

The case reminded me of this remarkable story-From Sask. adoptive parents
win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07):

"The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle
for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive
parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life.

"The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of
the baby, arguing he hadn't agreed to the adoption. He said he hadn't even
been aware he was the child's father and once he found out, he sought
custody.

"The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the
baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the
couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn't
have children of their own.

"In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's
Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child's best interests
and should be maintained.

"As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a
positive presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role. So in
order to give the child a year of 'familial calm' to promote bonding and
attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from
seeing the baby for a year.

"'My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in the
early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult
relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy's] stability, it is
best that he have intermittent exposure to [the biological father], rather
than structured continuous access,' the court said in its ruling.

"Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it
cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong.
Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex
circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human
frailties."

A few comments:

1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I
would've allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given the
adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge is
correct-there's no easy or completely satisfactory solution here.

2) I would disagree with the judge's assertion that "it cannot, in a
fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong." The mother
was wrong-she should have allowed the father to raise his own child, instead
of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption.

3) While the judge insists that mom didn't do anything wrong, I wonder why
nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously adopt
out the baby-the desire to avoid paying child support to the biological
father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I know one
thing-if it had been the father in her position, everybody would have
assumed from the beginning that this was his motive.

4) The judge "banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a
year"-nice. And what a jerk the dad is-wanting to impose on the adoptive
couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother-who caused the
whole problem to begin with-has been "banned" from seeing her baby, too?
Somehow I doubt it.

5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support to
the adopted couple to raise the child he should've been allowed to raise. So
he gets the financial responsibility for his child without having any
parental rights to his child-what a cynic might call one of the core
principles of modern family law.

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/30/...adoption-scam/

Glenn Sacks

Another Dad Loses His Baby in Adoption Scam
April 30, 2008 at 1:20 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One
Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'-but It Wasn't Enough, we
discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought
a long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby
boy.

The boy's birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for
adoption after, according to one judge, she had "engaged in a web of
lies."

The case reminded me of this remarkable story-From Sask. adoptive parents
win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07):

"The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle
for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the
adoptive parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life.

"The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of
the baby, arguing he hadn't agreed to the adoption. He said he hadn't even
been aware he was the child's father and once he found out, he sought
custody.

"The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting
the baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she
chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew
they couldn't have children of their own.

"In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's
Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child's best
interests and should be maintained.

"As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a
positive presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role. So in
order to give the child a year of 'familial calm' to promote bonding and
attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father
from seeing the baby for a year.

"'My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in
the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated
adult relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy's]
stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to [the
biological father], rather than structured continuous access,' the court
said in its ruling.

"Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it
cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the
wrong. Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the
often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real
people with human frailties."

A few comments:

1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I
would've allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given
the adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge
is correct-there's no easy or completely satisfactory solution here.

2) I would disagree with the judge's assertion that "it cannot, in a
fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong." The mother
was wrong-she should have allowed the father to raise his own child,
instead of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption.

3) While the judge insists that mom didn't do anything wrong, I wonder why
nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously
adopt out the baby-the desire to avoid paying child support to the
biological father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I
know one thing-if it had been the father in her position, everybody would
have assumed from the beginning that this was his motive.

4) The judge "banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a
year"-nice. And what a jerk the dad is-wanting to impose on the adoptive
couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother-who caused the
whole problem to begin with-has been "banned" from seeing her baby, too?
Somehow I doubt it.

5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support
to the adopted couple to raise the child he should've been allowed to
raise. So he gets the financial responsibility for his child without
having any parental rights to his child-what a cynic might call one of the
core principles of modern family law.

Since this was a private adoption how much did the bio-mother get paid for
selling her child to the adoptive parents? The CS order against the father
is repaying the adoptive parents for the money they spent to buy the child.
I'm surprised Glenn Sacks didn't pick up on this dirty little secret about
the financial transactions in private adoptions.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/30/...adoption-scam/


[snip]


Since this was a private adoption how much did the bio-mother get paid for
selling her child to the adoptive parents? The CS order against the
father is repaying the adoptive parents for the money they spent to buy
the child. I'm surprised Glenn Sacks didn't pick up on this dirty little
secret about the financial transactions in private adoptions.

Something I've noticed over the years is that even when the courts, media,
and even the man on the street, all know that when a Father has done no
wrong, no harm to his child(ren), pursued all legal avenues, used truth,
logic and commonsense to present his side of things - in nearly ever case
the courts have said "Yup, we know you're a decent person and we know you're
in the right. But since you don't have a vagina and it's not in accordance
with the Law of Radical Feminism, therefore you aren't a victim in our eyes.
We hereby find you guilty of everything and nothing. You are ordered to pay
more then half your life's earnings until the child(ren) are 25 or you die,
which ever comes first. Here's the bill and there's the jail cell. Which
do you want?"

Talk about one hell of a scam.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/30/...adoption-scam/


[snip]


Since this was a private adoption how much did the bio-mother get paid
for
selling her child to the adoptive parents? The CS order against the
father is repaying the adoptive parents for the money they spent to buy
the child. I'm surprised Glenn Sacks didn't pick up on this dirty little
secret about the financial transactions in private adoptions.

Something I've noticed over the years is that even when the courts, media,
and even the man on the street, all know that when a Father has done no
wrong, no harm to his child(ren), pursued all legal avenues, used truth,
logic and commonsense to present his side of things - in nearly ever case
the courts have said "Yup, we know you're a decent person and we know
you're
in the right. But since you don't have a vagina and it's not in
accordance
with the Law of Radical Feminism, therefore you aren't a victim in our
eyes.
We hereby find you guilty of everything and nothing. You are ordered to
pay
more then half your life's earnings until the child(ren) are 25 or you
die,
which ever comes first. Here's the bill and there's the jail cell. Which
do you want?"

Talk about one hell of a scam.

Most of the public at large would say your claims are entirely off the wall.
Of course, this stems from sheer ignorance. There just aren't enough
folks getting cheated by the system. But give it time. Eventually, it will
get to the point where more and more people are negatively affected by such
atrocities. Hopefully, by that time, it won't be too late to eliminate this
corrupt system without bloodshed.